Shared publicly  - 
Jason makes a solid and sensible response to +Bruce Byfield's shock and dismay.

I'm of the same school: I do most of my work on OS X; I run Linux Mint in a Parallels VM. I use Final Cut Pro and Motion for video work, I use Blender for 3D modeling and FontForge for font design. I develop web sites using Dreamweaver, and digital artwork with Illustrator and Photoshop. I manage my photos with Aperture, and do IM with Adium.

The position of open source advocates is something like being a carpenter who won't buy tools from Garett-Wade (even though they're excellent tools) because he doesn't like the personal politics of one of the owners, preferring to buy inferior chisels from someone whose outlook better matches his own.

And that's silly.
David Schlesinger's profile photoJason Brooks's profile photoBruce Byfield's profile photoJason Perlow's profile photo
No valid way to lump open source advocates together like that. It's like calling out "the media."
I'm waiting—just _waiting_—for the first putz to show up and explain to me how I ought to be calling it "Guh-Noo Linux"...
" source advocates..."

Granted, there are more and less strident and more and less sensible ones. To his credit, +Bruce Byfield is not strident, and (usually) sensible. Not so much this time, I'm afraid.

However, there's a much greater level of tolerance for the "free software crazies"—and I would number folks like Roy Schestowitz and (yes, I'm gonna say it) Richard Stallman, as well as a strong strain of apologism, for Stallman, anyway, among the open source advocates, generally speaking...

None of this serves them well.
Yeah, it's tough to discuss clearly -- Bruce's article references a few very different strains of surrender monkeyism -- "I'm going to use proprietary sw when I need it" is quite different from "who cares about open, anyway."

Everyone, including RMS, uses proprietary software on some level. It's everywhere, and unavoidable.

For me, I recognize that the time I spend using software is an investment of a limited resource -- my time and attention -- and if I have the opportunity to choose tools that I'm allowed to own as well as use, I'm going to choose those tools, even if there's an extra hoop or two to step through.

And every app brings advantages and disadvantages -- on OS X v Linux, I can't abide investing in a platform that's arbitrarily barred from running on my hardware or from partaking in virtualization, when the benefits it offers are, to my mind, few.

iOS, so far, is a different story.
Actually, I'm neither shocked nor dismayed. But I do think there needs to be more thought on this subject. If you get too pragmatic, then the whole point of FOSS disappears.
I suppose it'd have to take into account what one considered the point to be in the first place...
+Bruce Byfield FOSS vs. Pragmatism doesn't cast FOSS in a very positive light -- it's the fact that free and open source is rooted in practical matters that makes it worth pursuing
+David Schlesinger I probably should say that I do distinguish between someone who is an "Open Source" advocate and who is a "Free Software" advocate. I believe that a "Open Source" advocate is much more likely to be "Pragmatic" than one who is leaning towards the FSF and Stallmanism. In fact I think Pragmatism in Open Source Advocacy and Stallmanism/Free Software ideals is probably mutually exclusive.
Do we need a new term for this sort of Open Source Pragmatism? Perhaps Software Libertarianism?
Add a comment...